櫸木案二審有罪 法院撤銷原判決(原住民族電視台.2009/12/17 )
Beech tree case second hearing guilty, court repeals verdict (Taiwan Indigenous Television 2009/12/17)
12月7號 最高法院對司馬庫斯櫸木案做出撤銷二審判決，原本二審判決把被風吹倒的櫸木搬回部落的泰雅族人有罪，不過最高法院發回更審，法官在判決書中引用原住民族基 本法，並且強調應該尊重原住民族傳統慣習，這是司馬庫斯櫸木案官司開始以來，首度有法官在判決書中，數度引用「原住民傳統土地」這樣的字眼，肯定原住民族 使用傳統領域的權利，也讓司馬庫斯部落的泰雅族人相當振奮。
On 7 December the Supreme Court repealed the verdict of the second hearing in the Smangus Beech Tree Case. The original verdict in the second hearing found the three Atayal men who moved a wind fallen beech tree back to their village were guilty. In addition the Supreme Court emphasised that there should be respect for indigenous peoples' traditional customs. It was the first time since the beginning of the Smangus beech tree case that the judge's verdict had included the wording of “indigenous peoples' traditional territory”. It affirmed indigenous peoples' right to use their traditional territory. It also raised the spirits of the Smangus community.
民國94年10月， 艾莉颱風過後，司馬庫斯部落內櫸木橫倒路旁，林務局把樹身鋸下帶離，留下埋在土石中的樹根還有部分枝幹，司馬庫斯部落三名族人，經過部落會議決定後，將樹 根搬回部落，要做為部落美化之用，但是卻遭到森林警察以違反森林法盜取森林產物起訴，一、二審判決都判三位族人有罪。族人多次抗爭，最後上訴到最高法院，12月7號最高法院作出原判決撤銷，將全案發回高等法院更審。
In October 2005 after Typhoon Talim a beech tree was left lying by the road on Smangus land. The Forestry Bureau took the wood from the trunk of the tree, leaving behind the stump that had been buried in the ground and some branches. After a decision by a meeting of the Smangus community three men brought the stump back to the village to use for beautifying the village. However, they met with some forestry police and and were charged with stealing forest products under the Forestry Act. The first and second court hearings found the three men guilty. Members of the community held many protests until the case finally reached the Supreme Court. On 7 December the Supreme Court repealed the original verdict and sent the entire case back to the High Court for reexamination.
最 高法院判決書中特別強調，原住民傳統習俗，具有歷史淵源與文化特色，為了促進各族群間公平、永續發展，要以多元主義之觀點、文化相對的角度，建立共存共榮 之族群關係，尤其在「原住民傳統領域」土地內，依原住民傳統習俗行為，在合理範圍，予以適當尊重，以保障原住民族之基本權利。這是法院第一次以「原住民傳 統領域」的字眼強調原住民族傳統生活慣俗必須受到尊重，司馬庫斯族人認為雖然全案還沒判決無罪，但是這是三年多來的努力，總算看見一些成果。
The Supreme Court's verdict especially emphasised that indigenous peoples' traditional customs possess historical origins and distinct cultural features. In order to promote equality and good relations between ethnic groups and sustainable development there needs to be consideration of pluralism and different cultures. Especially within “indigenous peoples' traditional territory” activities conducted according to traditional customs should be given suitable respect, within a reasonable limit, to guarantee indigenous peoples' basic rights. This was the first time the wording “indigenous peoples' traditional territory” had been used to emphasize that indigenous peoples lifestyle and customs must be respected. The members of Smangus believe that although the entire case has still not overturned the guilty verdict, after more than three years of efforts there has been some result.
此 外法官在判決書中表示，根據森林法第十五條第四項規定，森林位於「原住民傳統領域土地者」，原住民得依其生活慣俗需要，採取森林產物，其採取之區域、種 類、時期、無償、有償及其他應遵行事項之管理規則，由中央主管機關會同中央原住民主管機關定之。並且引用原住民族基本法第十九條第一項表示，原住民得在原 住民族地區依法採集野生植物及菌類。
In addition the judge's verdict stated that according to Article 15, Section 4 of the Forestry Act that in forest areas in indigenous peoples traditional territory, indigenous people could take forest products for the requirements of their lifestyle and customs. The area, type, time should be in accordance with the management regulations decided by the central government in conjunction with the central authority of the indigenous peoples. The verdict also cited the Article 19, Section 1 of the Indigenous Peoples' Basic Law that indigenous people in indigenous areas could collect wild plants and fungus according to the law.
法 官認為法律已經對原住民族人在傳統領域內採集森林產物訂出相關規範，而主管機關林務局以及行政院原民會還沒有訂定管理規則，高等法卻以森林法第十五條判決 司馬庫斯三位泰雅族人有罪，最高法院在判決書中也提出說名表示，森林法第三項所稱之「處分規則」，與第四項所稱之「管理規則」，應分別訂定，且除有適用或 準用之明文外，依第三項訂定之「處分規則」並不適用或準用於第四項。認為二審判決適用法則不當，因此將司馬庫斯櫸木案原判決撤銷，發回更審。
The judge considered that the law already set good standards for the collection of forest products by indigenous people on their traditional territory. Furthermore the Forestry Bureau and Council of Indigenous Peoples had not yet set the management regulations. The High Court used Article 15 of the Forestry Act to find the three Atayal men guilty. The Supreme Court's verdict also gave instructions on Article 15 of the Forestry Act, in particular the “Action Regulations” relevant to Section 3 and the “Management Regulations” applicable to Section 4. There should be a distinction in the regulations and the application of Section 3 was not at all applicable to Section 4. In the second verdict in the case the relevant laws were not proper, therefore the verdict in the Smangus beech tree case was repealed and sent back to the High Court for reexamination.
http://www.tipp.org.tw/formosan/news/news_detail.jspx?id=20091218000025 accessed 6 January 2010
Original text in Chinese. English translation by David Reid.